The Arts and Entertainment Work Group is a working group of members of the Biography WikiProject dedicated to ensuring quality and coverage of biography articles.
Biography (arts and entertainment) articles by quality and importance
Since biographies are potentially under the purview of almost all WikiProjects, it is important that we work in tandem with these projects. Also, when seeking collaboration on articles, don't neglect to approach WikiProjects that are part of the geographical region your subject is/was in.
Related Portals
Increase the exposure of our work group by nominating our articles for their Portal FA and DYKs... Specific discipline portals are listed in that section.
William Ely Hill (1887-1962) - Illustrator, created artwork for the book covers for F. Scott Fitzgerald and had a regular entry in the New York tribune along with being published on numerous occasions.
The general outline and collection has been started, but if you would like to expand and organize a discipline, here's what you do. Right below the page heading for the discipline insert this: {{subst:Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Work groups/Division banner}} and save. This will put a rough outline together for you and then you can edit it to conform to your area. See Writers and critics below for an example. If your project grows large enough where it's taking up a good portion of this page, you should probably move it to a subpage of this page.
You might also want to make a Members section for people to join your specific area!
Any article related to this work group should be marked by adding |a&e-work-group=yes to the {{WPBiography}} project banner at the top of its talk page. This will automatically place it into Category:Arts and entertainment work group articles. Articles can be assessed for priority within this work group by using the |a&e-priority= parameter. See Template:WikiProject Biography/doc for detailed instructions on how to use the banner.
Jubileeclipman (talk·contribs) I am interested in taking on UK celebrities with articles that are stubs or otherwise non-standard. Entirely rewrote Fearne Cotton to raise standard and remove fansite tag. I am working on Holly Willoughby which was merely a list plus trivia. Will also work on musicians, all genre, living or dead.
I'm rather surprised that this survived the earlier deletion discussion, which seems very shallow. Most of those calling for keeping it cited only the sheer number of sources all piled up in one place, with apparently nobody, including the nominator, actually looking at them. Well, I've looked at them all, or at least those that are still online, and they are all nearly exactly the same: some fan horror fan website or podcast writes like two paragraphs saying "these are kind of cool" and then reproduces several of the illustrations (although those have mostly been taken down now as well). I didn't find a single one that a person could honestly characterize as significant coverage from a reliable source.
The use of external links is also problematic, we don't usually include 140 external links in the body of an article, or any at all, actually. It would be more effort than this article is worth to even correct this problem as this appears to have been a flash-in-the-pan fad that the artist did to raise money for some other project, from what I can glean from the extremely scant actual coverage that goes beyond "hey look at this." Just Step Sidewaysfrom this world ..... today21:56, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't agree that it can be characterized as a "flash-in-the-pan fad" when it's been going on for 10 years continues to get coverage since the last time a source was added to the article, 1, 2, 3. What can be considered "in depth" is highly debatable, personally I would say that what is here gets the subject over GNG. And "article is bad/weird/unusual" is not a valid reason for deletion.★Trekker (talk) 22:32, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just saying What can be considered "in depth" is highly debatable is easy enough, but I don't think you can actually show that any of this coverage has any depth at all, and also none of it is what would be considered a reliable source, which you haven't addressed with your reply. Just Step Sidewaysfrom this world ..... today00:09, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing whatever specialized sourcing guideline you are referring to. "I think a WikiProject agrees with me" is not a valid argument as that is obviously not how we determine what is a reliable source. Geek Tyrant, for example, does not look at all like proffessional journalism. Neither does The Retroist, which spilled all of 131 words on the subject, hardly in-depth coverage. Paste (magazine) seems an ok source, but they wrote only five sentences, that again, boiled down to "hey look at this guys Tumblr" and nothing else. Just Step Sidewaysfrom this world ..... today19:44, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm honestly confused how you could look at literally any of the sources and feel that they present the subject in any depth. There's nothing beyond "hey look at this" which is why the article is just the same. There's a good number of sources, but if you can't point to at least a few that have some depth then how can you be satisfied with it? Just Step Sidewaysfrom this world ..... today19:26, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have already stated that 3 times or maybe more and Trekker has already kindly replied. Check the definition of significant on Wikipedia, if you wish. Various sources are independent and reliable and address the productions directly; the coverage can be considered significant either individually, or collectively, if your concern is the number of words or sentences of each of the sources. Thank you. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)20:27, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. The first source is "Geek Tyrant" which does not seem like the most reliable of sources and is only five sentences, so not significant coverage. The second source is similarly "ComingSoon.net" which is only four sentences long. The third source is "ComingSoon.net" again, this time with five sentences. I don't see the significant coverage in reliable sources here that would suggest this might meet WP:GNG. I'd consider an article on the artist rather than this one of their art projects, but this seems far from WP:ARTIST standards like "significant new concept, theory, or technique," "substantial part of a significant exhibition," or "represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums." Elspea756 (talk) 21:06, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've checked these suggested sources, and am regretting that I spent any time doing so. I am switching my previous comment to "strong delete," as I am further convinced this is nowhere near WP:GNG or WP:ARTIST. Elspea756 (talk) 22:28, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
I initially wanted to wait until either the webcomic concluded, or the most recent source is 10+ years old, but returning talkpage concerns made me decide to start this early. My argument for deletion is WP:SUSTAINED combined with a shift in subject matter of the work covered. The most recent source, a 2016 list entry by Paste, states that it had "recently become a more specific and pointed criticism of the most toxic parts of American exceptionalism," and this is the most up-to-date information we can cite on this webcomic. Sean Kleefield in his 2020 book Webcomics did mention Sinfest as an example, but in his blog he made clear he did not do any research for this. As editors, we have recently tried to expand on Ishida's/Sinfest's recent political and controversial aspects through primary sources, but this got (probably rightfully?) undone. Reliable sources are staying away from Sinfest and we don't know how to cover it anymore: the article is largely about a Sinfest that no longer exists, or only exists buried in its own archives. Typically when sources on a long-running webcomic dry up, it just means it's no longer in the zeitgeist, but I don't think that really applies here: I would perhaps make the vain suggestion that reliable sources don't "want" to consider this work notable. I would like to hear what other editors think of this argument and issue. Note that "this webcomic is bad/harmful" is not a deletion rationale tho. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 06:55, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. SUSTAINED applies to brief bursts of newspaper coverage: the coverage already in this article passes sustained, with consistent coverage over a period of multiple years. Per WP:NTEMP once something is notable, it is notable for good, and even though the coverage has ceased the past coverage is well, well over sustained. The past Sinfest is the notable sinfest, we do not need to discuss the current one. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:16, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. In my opinion, the discrepancy between what Sinfest was in the 2000s and what it is now is so jarring that it has become an entirely different entity, functionally separate from what it was once was. I think we can all agree that reliable sources have not given meaningful coverage to the very disturbing turn the comic has taken over the past few years.
Ordinarily, it's completely fine for an article on a comic to lay stagnant if reliably sourced coverage dries up. However, in this case, we're left with an article that discusses the generally favorable coverage Sinfest received in the past, says nothing about its current iteration, and maintains a link to the website. Together, these facts mean that this page functions as a puff piece on a work of antisemitic propaganda, which it then directly links to.
I want to make it clear that I do not believe that this was the intent of any editor here; I know that Wikipedia has policies for a reason, and I have not gotten any impression of fellow editors here other than that they are committed to following Wikipedia's procedures and improving the site's coverage of this comic. I do think that, in this case, we might have to be a bit flexible in the application of policy. "Notability is not temporary" is certainly a good guideline in general, but in this case, we have been left with no way to talk honestly about something that it would be harmful to talk about dishonestly. For that reason, I think deletion is the best option.
I'll be honest here, I'm only an occasional editor of Wikipedia, and I'm not thoroughly familiar with the site's policies or precedents on issues like this. I feel about this similarly to the way I do when I hear about US Supreme Court rulings, which is that I have a strong moral conviction about what is right, but I don't know much about actual legal procedure. (I've made a couple comments on the Sinfest talk page about policy in the past, and later realized that I was mistaken about how the relevant policy actually worked, which is why I haven't posted there since.) For that reason, I chose to comment rather than explicitly support deletion. My position is based not on specific Wikipedia policy but on my moral conviction that Wikipedia should not be covering antisemitic propaganda without explicitly labeling it as such.Wehpudicabok (talk) 21:40, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG Delete, fails WP:GNG as sources either do not provide significant coverage or are not independent of the subject. Nominator Maplestrip/Mable and comment by Wehpudicabok are correct that this also fails WP:SUSTAINED as the only potentially reliable sources I see here, like Publishers Weekly, only provide coverage during a relatively brief time period, and the lack of sources means this fails WP:NPOV and WP:BLP with several poorly sourced claims about a living person's "perspectives" on "American politics, organized religion, and radical feminism."
Source assessment: Here is a a source assessment table showing the first 10 out of 11 sources in the article. The 11th source[8] is another example of insignificant coverage, with just two sentences on this topic in a listicle of 29 other items. Elspea756 (talk) 15:35, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mentioned in a single short sentence in an article on another topic
✘No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
As nominator I cannot stand by this source assessment. I would consider many of these sources perfectly usable, notably the Publisher's Weekly articles, the paragraphs in Wired and Paste, and the WCCA, had Sinfest simply left the zeitgeist. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 06:58, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree. Many of these sources are usable. I had a similar discussion years ago with a table like this (which was also faulty) and it only led to issues. Historyday01 (talk) 14:32, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could you really start an article about a webcomic with that little? The 2013 source is nothing, just sinfest's name used once as an example alongside another comic.
Are we looking at the same source??? The 2013 work contains several pages of actual analyses of Sinfest's panel usage and formatting. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:59, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What else would they write about? Plot recaps? In your eyes, what would count here?
Fictional works are typically notable based on outside reception of them. Analyses of a comic like this is a very strong sign it is notable. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:07, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Any webcomic being mentioned in a "fairly technical" book is an accomplishment in my reading, especially with several pages of coverage. The other book shows Sinfest being taken of note - it is not cited to Reddit threads other than to say that the comic's change in tone was controversial on the internet. Where else would he have gotten information on it being controversial on the internet?
Also, it's not sourced entirely from Reddit posts, it is citing Reddit posts to say there was a lot of online controversy over this. What else would you cite???? PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:09, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Iunno man, I only get involved in Wikipedia a few times a year. Try finding a source for the changes to Sinfest over time on your own time. Maybe discuss that with the people who watch for changes to the Sinfest page. Lot of productive things you could do if you want to save this page. Maybe find a newspaper to publish an article about Sinfest. In the mean time, my vote remains delete due to no WP:Sustained. 2601:447:C801:3AD0:4401:E46F:BEE7:403 (talk) 06:11, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Typically, the decision between whether NTEMP overrules SUSTAINED or vice-versa depends on how short-term the sources were; say a week versus a few years. I recognize that my argument is a very atypical application of SUSTAINED that almost goes into WP:IAR territory. Regardless, I want to note that I agree with PARAKANYAA that the 2020 is a fine source, but willalso say that because Sinfest is merely an example of something that can happen with a webcomic, without much depth, it is not particularly useful for an encyclopedic article about Sinfest itself. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 07:12, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My rebuttal to sustained is that sustained does not mean "sources must exist that cover every appreciable moment of something", it means "it making the news for two days and then never again". Coverage over years is sustained by definition. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:14, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's a huge difference between the Stonetoss and Sinfest pages, though, which kind of illustrates my point. The Stonetoss page immediately identifies it as a neo-Nazi webcomic right from the first sentence, and the claim has several citations to reliable sources. If similar reliable sources existed to identify Sinfest that way, we would simply add them, and then I would vote to keep. We cannot do that, because as far as I can tell, reliable sources do not cover Sinfest and haven't for many years. Wehpudicabok (talk) 18:45, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, Sinfest very much lacks WP:Sustained if you can't even source such a large and obvious part of the comic. Has anyone here read the recent articles? It's openly anti-semitic and not trying to hide it. It would practically make Jack Chick say 'that's a bit much' 05:57, 26 July 2024 (UTC)~~ 2601:447:C801:3AD0:4401:E46F:BEE7:403 (talk) 05:57, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just because one aspect isn't covered doesn't mean it fails sustained.
Also, sustained doesn't even apply to the comic as a whole, it applies to events. If the owner had made one very controversial comic that would be an Event and need sustained coverage, but the reasons Sinfest is notable aren't related to that. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:02, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If Sinfest had sustained notoriety it would be possible to keep the article up to date. It is not possible to keep the article up to date. Therefore Sinfest does not have sustained notoriety.
If it has coverage over several years, it is still notable, even if the coverage ends. That is what WP:SUSTAINED and WP:NTEMP mean. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:17, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article currently contains many statements about sinfest's early political leanings who's sources would not be accepted in the modern Wikipedia... I have a low opinion on the sourcing of this article. At least an article about the layout and formatting would be sourced correctly. 2601:447:C801:3AD0:4401:E46F:BEE7:403 (talk) 06:18, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. I would be wary of the source assessment based on what is stated on the template page: "The use of this template does not imply a final or consensus view of how any given source should be assessed. Though it may be used to summarize a developing consensus, it may also reflect the assessments of a single editor in the course of a discussion." It seems to do the latter rather than the former. Just thought I'd make that one point here. Historyday01 (talk) 02:01, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there are two competing arguments happening in this thread and I think it's confusing the issue a lot. Argument 1 - The comic has significant older coverage, but has changed direction dramatically since then, and the article does not mention that at all. This is not a reason to delete. It is a reason to edit. Argument 2. The comic has never had significant older coverage. That would be a reason to delete, but I am personally a (weakish) Keep on this front. There are a variety of sources, even if the coverage isn't particularly "deep", and it appears to have held at least a minor cachet in the early 2010s webcomic scene. That said, the self-promotion citations (site news and patreon link) should probably be taken out. (aside, I am leery of the "source assessment" table, as it strikes me as a means to paint "objectivity" on the various sources by applying fancy formatting. is this a new thing to wikipedia? I've never seen it before.) Hornpipe2 (talk) 22:25, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With regard to the comment that "The comic has significant older coverage, but has changed direction dramatically since then, and the article does not mention that at all. This is not a reason to delete. It is a reason to edit.", editors have done so. Other editors have then removed those edits, because they were not reliably sourced. This is what we've been discussing. There's no way to talk honestly about what the comic is now, because no reliable sources have covered the change. And this is a particularly disturbing change to omit, because the comic has veered into explicitly antisemitic propaganda. If you have coverage of the change from reliable sources, by all means, add them. Wehpudicabok (talk) 22:39, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't plan to edit the page, no, but it sounds like AfD is not the venue for this discussion then? I'm pretty firmly opposed to "we should delete it because an edit war is preventing the article from being corrected". Hornpipe2 (talk) 22:46, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what I'm saying and it's not what happened. Some editors made good-faith edits to cover the change, then others pointed out that the changes have to be reliably sourced, and the sources that had been used didn't meet Wikipedia's reliability standards. As far as I can tell, there simply aren't any reliable sources that have covered the change. It's not an edit war; there's just no way to make it better unless reliable sources start covering this topic, which they are unlikely to do. And finally (this is my own opinion, not Wikipedia policy), it is unethical to cover antisemitic propaganda without calling it that. Wehpudicabok (talk) 22:54, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I am sorry to have mischaracterized your statements, I do not mean any ill will here. I agree that it is unfortunate that the article does not (and cannot?) cover the comic's turn into antisemitism and transphobia - things I too find reprehensible - but speaking purely from the perspective of article deletion, my understanding of the policy is simply that articles are not to be deleted for reasons like this. Hornpipe2 (talk) 23:06, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. To be honest, I'm not as familiar with Wikipedia's deletion policy as I'd like to be, which is why I keep emphasizing that some of what I'm saying is not based on that policy. If this were an ordinary webcomic, I'd be fine just leaving it as it was years ago; and if this were a culturally prominent piece of far-right propaganda, I'd be editing the article to reflect that. It's only because it's in the specific overlap of "gray area of notability" and "far-right propaganda" that we have this problem. Wehpudicabok (talk) 23:13, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All the 2013 book seems to prove is that Sinfest exists. I could write an article about it if you'd like using that source. Ahem "Sinfest is a webcomic".
In the old days you could get GNG with more original research than Wikipedia is willing to tolerate in the modern era. I helped clean up a lot of original research FROM the GNG article, including a list of characters. 2601:447:C801:3AD0:4401:E46F:BEE7:403 (talk) 05:53, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The 2013 source has plenty of analytical coverage of Sinfest. What are you even talking about? It's multiple pages discussing and analyzing a comic from it. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:00, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And? It's really, honestly, not enough. Wikipedia has far too many pages about non-notable webcomics that popped up during a brief span of time in the 90's-00's when webcomics were 'hot'. It was a fad, and Wikipedia would be better if many of these irrelevant articles were removed. 2601:447:C801:3AD0:4401:E46F:BEE7:403 (talk) 06:52, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since the article no longer reflects what Sinfest has become, and editorial policies restricting its update to reflect this seismic shift. Ssteedman (talk) 05:00, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is a reason for events. If Ishida had made one extremely controversial comic 10 years ago and it wasn't mentioned before or since, that would be a sustained issue. This is a comic strip. The coverage is already over multiple years - just because something isn't covered anymore does not make it non notable. Read WP:NTEMP
Plenty of notable TV shows or series have less coverage as they go along. We do not delete a notable work because its later versions have less coverage. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:04, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's 'way less coverage' and there is 'completely a non entity among major publications'. And I'm not joking about that, have you read any of the recent strips? If we can't find a source for that extreme of an event, it was probably never an important thing in the first place.
It's like, you've got two football players. A major league one and a elementary school league one. Both get a wikipedia article because they're mentioned in a newspaper. Years go by without their pages being updated. Both of them suddenly say something racist. The major league football player is covered in a national newspaper and his page is updated to include the controversy. The elementary school one isn't, and his page isn't. Do we really need a page for the elementary kid who grew into an adult that no one official cares about? 2601:447:C801:3AD0:4401:E46F:BEE7:403 (talk) 06:24, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not based on how popular something is, it's based on if it is covered in reliable secondary sources.
Your example is false because local coverage is typically given less weight in notability. Sinfest has coverage in Publishers Weekly, a respected national publication, and several books. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:32, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Let's say they get an article in the same national newspaper and are even listed alongside each other. One goes on to have sustained notability. The other does not.
Sinfest does not have sustained notability. You've got a single book from 2013, and a few low quality secondary sources. The book from 2020 is unresearched per the author of that book's blog, and is largely just a citation of some uncitable Reddit threads. You do not have notibility.2601:447:C801:3AD0:4401:E46F:BEE7:403 (talk) 06:49, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If there are two football players, one of who goes on to be a household name, and one of whom is successful but less famous, and they both have continued coverage in newspapers, yes, they should both have articles. We do not only have articles on famous things. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:03, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But that's the thing. One doesn't have continued coverage and one does.
You said it in your own words.
and they both have continued coverage in newspapers,
Please add @Historyday01: to the list of users that were possibly inappropriately notified (WP:CANVASS) of this AFD. Diff. Timestamps indicate that Historyday01 received the user talk notification first and then !voted in this AFD second. I have blocked 2601:447:C801:3AD0/64 for a week for canvassing after being previously warned about it. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:23, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's a good idea. To be perfectly honest, I wouldn't have known about it otherwise. After a recent bad experience with an AfD, I am generally cautious to participate these days, but I saw this discussion as an exception. And I actually would have even voted delete myself, but its my personal view to vote "keep" (even weak keep) or "redirect" whenever possible. So, if that user was trying to get me to vote delete... that did NOT work. Historyday01 (talk) 22:22, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The difference is that Cerebere's changes can be sourced. And I think that pretty clearly shows the difference between an actually notable, sustained notability, for a comic and... well... this. Which is not sustained. 2601:447:C801:3AD0:4401:E46F:BEE7:403 (talk) 06:19, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that depends on what happens in the comic. Has to be enough coverage to keep any major tonal shifts in the comic over the course of it's life updated. If you can't manage that, it's not actually notable.
NTEMP and SUSTAINED are not contradictory. Sustained means that it must have more than a single-event burst of news coverage to be notable, while NTEMP means that once it has cleared that bar it is forever notable. None of the coverage is the "single-event" burst of notable that SUSTAINED applies to. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:58, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have One. Book.
That sounds like a single burst to me. The great webcomics fad of the 00's.
The other book is fine. The source analysis is incorrect, the Publishers Weekly source is not a "press release" and is fine, the Wired and Paste sources are enough to be SIGCOV. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:08, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like this deletion discussion has seen enough arguments between 2601:447:C801:3AD0:4401:E46F:BEE7:403 and PARAKANYAA; I'm afraid that you two may continue talking in circles around eachother until one decides to stop responding. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 07:16, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A possible solution: what is wrong with Sean Kleefeld's 2024 "On Tatsuya Ishida" post as a source for citations in the article (as previously mentioned above)? The author has written an (already cited!) book on comics, is seemingly something of an authority or expert in the subject matter, etc. I guess that blog publishing is self-publishing, but, this isn't self-promoting - more of an "addendum" or errata to the book, in my mind. If this was permitted it seems it'd let the article be further edited towards "correctness" and this discussion could be put to rest. Hornpipe2 (talk) 14:14, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am reading further about Wikipedia's allowable use of self-published sources and I now believe this self-published article by this expert author meets the criteria for usage except it runs afoul of Biography of Living Person: Avoid self-published sources - you cannot use a self-published third-party source to support a claim about a living individual. I'm not sure if it would be possible to carefully select parts of this that cover specifically the comic itself and not the artist, but the title doesn't give much hope :P
That said, I encourage people to read the guidelines on self-published sources and especially cases where the subject is writing about themself: it seems likely to me that a handful of posts from the author on their site would suffice to meet both the goals of documenting the current artist's viewpoints while remaining on the right side of the allowable sources discussion. The reverted version (see first post in this thread) cites some Patreon posts and other items from the author themselves: perhaps there's some usable gems in there. Hornpipe2 (talk) 14:36, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can't use Kleefeld's post to say anything about Ishida's descent into conspiracy theories and antisemitism, but it should be fine to use it to say that the comic has changed and no longer connects to its once large fanbase. —Kusma (talk) 18:42, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete while I'm not usually in favor of reading WP:SUSTAINED in such a strict manner (especially for stuff like media or events, which often only have a few bursts of coverage), it's necessary here to avoid having a page that totally misrepresents its subject. If this strip were truly notable, there'd be at least one or two sources commenting on its current nature. The fact that there isn't indicates the page should be deleted. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:31, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
People are no longer posting regular updates about Badgers (animation), do you suggest that to be removed as well? I am really having a hard time understanding this retroactive hyper-scrutiny applied to a webcomic which was literally written about in book(s) as the best solution to an out-of-date overview. It's flatly the wrong tool to resolve the issue. Hornpipe2 (talk) 20:41, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hornpipe2:Badgers (animation) is not still being published. Again, this is a rather weird case as this almost never happens with media. But having this article as-is is not really in line with our fundamental policies. Ideally, some reliable source would cover this comic strip's transformation and we could keep the article, but that hasn't happened yet. If it does I'll switch to keep. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:46, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability isn't temporary and the book sources combined with the smaller mentions in other sources add up to GNG. Most of these deletion votes are motivated by a dislike of the comic/comic author. WP:SUSTAINED does not mean continuous coverage all the time, just that coverage is not for one event/a few weeks. Sinfest has attracted coverage over multiple years. The canvassing needs to be noted too. Traumnovelle (talk) 22:19, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Traumnovelle you're one of the proponents on the Sinfest talkpage of, well, not updating it with any new information because you don't feel that the sources meet Wikipedia standards. The standards that you're holding new sources too is, in fact, so tight that I honestly don't believe that the older sources hold up to those standards.
It cannot be updated, and it should not have existed in the first place... which is honestly reasonable, it's just a minor webcomic, no real direct links from other Wikipedia articles to it. Documenting it would be like documenting every single fast food chain in the USA that ever showed up in a local newspaper... not something that Wikipedia is intended for.
Keep, this was a major webcomic 10 years ago that is now obscure, but did have somenontrivial coverage outside of the innermost webcomics bubble. Sure, it is not Dilbert, but it was, as RationalWiki says, "one of the most popular webcomics on the Internet". Notability is not temporary, and there is nontrivial coverage of Sinfest back when it was a popular webcomic on Google Scholar. —Kusma (talk) 11:02, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"This was a major webcomic 10 years ago". Original research, also all webcomics were more in the limelight back then, there was a fad for them. 'Rationalwiki says' not a good source. Google Scholar. Not a good source. Bloomsburry studies: Mentions sinfest as an example, but that alone is not enough to make Sinfest notable. Regardless of if you like or dislike the comic, wikipedia is not the place for non-notible articles that cannot be improved. Le Blue Dude (talk) 17:13, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That it was a major webcomic 10 years ago is evident from its use as an example in various publications, not just from the non-RS Rationalwiki. There do not seem to be any sources for the last ten years, but that may be for the best. We can just say "As of 2014" to clarify we have no newer information. —Kusma (talk) 18:33, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, we do have subject matter expert Sean Kleefeld who can be cited to say that the comic has changed, possibly alienating its old audience. —Kusma (talk) 18:40, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There was a previous attempt to include that information. It was removed because, according to the person who removed it, it wasn't a usable source. The fact of the matter is that the article cannot be updated and cannot be improved. So far no sources have been sufficiently legitimate to overcome the inertia of the folks who don't want to improve nor modernize the page. The page should be taken down. Le Blue Dude (talk) 20:14, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete 'Rational wiki' is not a valid source. We don't need a separate page for every comic that ever made it onto a top ten list somewhere. This is not a notable subject Le Blue Dude (talk) 16:53, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I want to clarify my position a bit: The matters spoken of in this article are unverifiable. The sources are bad. Worse the article is riddled with original research, such as claiming that the 2008 shift in the comic was due to 'uncertainty and stress about the financial meltdown' which is NOT a quote from the purported source of that edit. This is a poor article that's not verifiable and made almost entirely from original research. I do not recommend retaining this article.Le Blue Dude (talk) 17:07, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, lastly, according to the deletion process, deletion is for articles that cannot be improved. This article cannot be improved. There are no reasonable sources for current events, and the sources for prior events are not sufficient. Le Blue Dude (talk) 17:10, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and full disclosure, I'm here because I saw the post in reddit. And yes, this article has needed to go for a long while. The deletion section says that articles that are 'unimprovable' should be deleted, and the past few years of people editing new information into the article only to have it removed due to a lack of verifiability is proof that it's unimprovable. Le Blue Dude (talk) 17:41, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
>Oh, lastly, according to the deletion process, deletion is for articles that cannot be improved.
Comment As a side note, I'm very uncomfortable with the fact that there's a direct link to sinfest on the wiki page. There should not be a direct link to openly antisemitic works on a wikipedia page, and sinfest is openly antisemitic. Le Blue Dude (talk) 20:33, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, for one thing, having the link improves Sinfest's standing in online search engine results. I know Sinfest comes up as the top result on a search for "sinfest," but I'm not thrilled with the idea of putting it higher in the results for terms also mentioned on its Wikipedia article, like "webcomic." I also don't like the idea that any random person perusing Wikipedia could find themselves on a site that promotes hate speech with no warning. Finally, just because Wikipedia is not censored does not mean a link is required. Wehpudicabok (talk) 23:09, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The link doesn't improve their standing in search results because we use nofollow. There is almost never a reason to avoid linking to a website in an article on that website. We link to Stormfront; we can link to this. Elli (talk | contribs) 23:28, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've already commented a lot on this AFD so I won't dwell here, but I do think that, even though this isn't a vote, I should make it clear that I favor deletion. Until reliable sources exist that can cover what Sinfest is now, the article as it exists is fundamentally inaccurate, and we have no way to make it accurate that's within Wikipedia policy. I would argue this falls under reason #7 to delete an article that's listed at WP:DEL-REASON: "Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed." While some reliable sources documented what Sinfest was circa 2008, no such sources exist for what it is now, and the coverage even then was sparse at best. Wehpudicabok (talk) 23:20, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The criteria in del-reason refers to things that cannot be verified to actually exist or contain no reliable sources at all. The article contains multiple reliable sources and someone posted two quality sources that can be used in this AfD. We don't need to be able to verify every detail/constant coverage or else we would have to delete Valerius Flaccus (poet) because it's impossible to verify anything about his life beyond his death. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:35, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you're going to reply to me, you could at least respond to the crux of what I'm saying. I will reiterate what I said above: "the article as it exists is fundamentally inaccurate, and we have no way to make it accurate that's within Wikipedia policy." I'm not talking about "every detail" or "constant coverage"; I don't demand that the article cover how Slick is no longer a main character. I'm talking about the fact that it's now an antisemitic hate site, which is an enormous change that this article completely ignores. Wikipedia should not lie to its readers. As it stands now, that's exactly what it's doing. Wehpudicabok (talk) 01:34, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are a fair number of what I would call bad rationales here, both to keep ("because we have an article about stone toss") and to delete ("it started to suck really bad between now and the last RS coverage"). For the record, and to put more specificity on what "suck really bad" means, I just went to the website and read through the last couple months of strips. While the art style is certainly better than it was some decade ago when I last heard of this comic, but I cannot help but notice, well: the current series is called "Into The Rabbi Hole" and the latest strip features two roosters representing Christianity and Islam being forced to fight for entertainment by a crowd of jeering Jews. If you go look at a random strip from the last year, it is just more of the same variety of rancid dog shit. The guy seems to have gone completely off the beam in this regard. Well, okay: this is dumb and bad, but I don't think it is an issue that makes sense to resolve by deleting the article. jp×g🗯️12:44, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem isn't the 'sucking' so much as the fact that we can't get any coverage of the shift into open antisemitism. Right now we've got an article about an anti-semitic website that doesn't explain what it is, and includes a direct link without any warnings to the antisemitic website.
Admittedly Traumnovelle isn't exactly helping. You can see from the article's talk page that this user will only accept the strictest rationelle for 'support'... so strict, in fact, that under Traumnovelle's standards the current article should not have been made. 2601:447:C801:3AD0:28EA:B8CD:4100:213B (talk) 13:00, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I may end up needing to revise my vote here.
I am trying to look this up and I'm going nuts.
Has nobody said a word about this in any usable source whatsoever?
Like, there's nothing at all. No news sites, no magazines, no industry blogs, no blogs of any kind: it's literally just discussion threads on forums and reddit and TVTropes and the Bad Webcomics wiki. I can't think of the last time I saw something like this. What? I feel like it is basically every other day you see a bold accusation that this or that public figure has some kind of secret right-wing sympathies -- social media posters and tabloid sites love connecting the dots on some infinitesimal freeze-frame detail in a video or an obscure flag in the background of a political rally. But somehow, nobody gives a hoot if one of the most widely-read webcomics of the 2000s pivots into [sinfest.xyz/view.php?date=2024-05-26 strips about how Hitler was based]?
Wild!
For what it's worth, even the hater websites do not seem to give a crap about this -- the RationalWiki article does not see fit to even mention it until after a rambling diatribe about him wanting porno to be illegal and thinking the COVID vaccine is a conspiracy and being a second-wave feminist instead of a third-wave feminist (all of which are given more attention and mentioned before the Nazi stuff). I guess maybe I am completely alone in thinking that "saying Adolf Hitler was the good guy" is a notably or unusually bad thing to do, and in reality, it's about on the same level of badness as "using the term 'cuck'".
I very much appreciate this comment, @JPxG:, as it affirms that this atypical deletion discussion has a real basis to it. It feels like an absurd situation and at least this gets that across. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 13:10, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've already voted but: Right from the deletion article "Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed" is where we're sitting right now. You can see many attempts to find more sources in the talk page, and furthermore I've repeatedly turned to the Sinfest Reddit to attempt to find more sources, asking redditers to scrape together any sources they can find.
Further This article heavily fails WP:ENCYCLOPEDIC. It is simply not an accurate representation of the subject. According to WP:COMPOUTCOMES 'flash animations are typically deleted unless extremely well known'. Generalising that to webcomics... I feel that sinfest is simply not extremely well known, and that deletion is the correct step. If it was well known, it would have more sources than a handful of bylines in weak media. The 'book' everyone cites doesn't seem to even directly speak about sinfest, it just uses sinfest as an example of a type of webcomic style... alongside other webcomics also used as an example of that style. 2601:447:C801:3AD0:28EA:B8CD:4100:213B (talk) 13:21, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. I'd say there is marginal support for keeping this page, per the existing sources, and the discussion here. I think others are more qualified to speak on that than me. Surely there are some unreliable sources, I won't dispute. I also feel that some IP addresses (like 2601:447:C801:3AD0:4401:E46F:BEE7:403|2601:447:C801:3AD0:4401:E46F:BEE7:403 which has more than 25 comments) are spamming their comments here to make their point in favor of deletion, which the closer should keep in mind. I think it is better to keep the page for the time being and work on it to improve it rather than deleting it outright. I can't think of anything this page would be redirected to, so at this point the only logical thing to do is to support a "weak keep."--Historyday01 (talk) 14:39, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You really don't understand the links you're referencing. Encyclopaedic says 'Information should not be included solely because it is true or useful. An article should not be a complete presentation of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject. Verifiable and sourced statements should be treated with appropriate weight.' which goes against what you wish for, unverifiable information to be included. The article complies with encyclopaedic because it represents a summary of what the reliable sources state.
Delete Per source assessment. The assessment isn't claiming the Wired, Publishers Weekly or Paste are unreliable. It shows these were passing mentions or press releases. The comic came and went and now seems to exist solely as a topic on user-generated sites. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:18, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Idea for how to mention/cite recent changes to the comic strip
So, basically, the central deal of it here seems to be that there is a big dispute over what to do about the fashening (for lack of a better word). The conflict here is that the article ends up being utterly ridiculous if we do not mention the fashening, but the sources we have are pretty patchy, and we cannot just claim in the voice of the encyclopedia that people have certain views, even when they obviously are. This is, of course, a good policy to have, but it does present us with a strange challenge here.
Well, after much rancor I think I have gotten something workable out of one of the sources previously ripped out because it was being used and quoted from poorly: the 2024 Kleefeld post (a subject-matter expert who we cite as such all over the product) that I think genuinely threads the needle of WP:BLP concerns to avoid saying anything defamatory about Ishida, while clearly indicating that a) the strip's political leanings have undergone another jarring shift and b) it is now a giant pile of dog shit.
I think we are allowed to note briefly, in an article about a webcomic, that a scholar of webcomics felt it necessary to note that the comic's quality declined precipitously. I have tried to phrase this in a way that does not make any statements as claims to objective fact, and presents them entirely as quotations from Kleefeld.
By 2024, the strip had changed direction again; author Sean Kleefeld said that when catching up on Sinfest issues, he "wasn't understanding them", and that the comic's political themes had gone on a "downward spiral" that seemed "at odds with reality".[1]
References
^Kleefeld, Sean (April 8, 2024). "On Tatsuya Ishida". Kleefeld on Comics. Archived from the original on May 4, 2024. Retrieved May 4, 2024.
Looks great - exactly what I was hoping we could get out of all this. I considered whether we might also be able to get Ishida's own statements in there to corroborate the new political direction; unfortunately, his "news" page is rather bare of actual statements. Maybe someone could dig deeper for that sort of thing. Hornpipe2 (talk) 13:35, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Generally, content-related discussion should be left to the talkpage of the article, rather than in this deletion discussion. I appreciate the work done tho, of course! ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 16:46, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reasons discussed elsewhere - "Article needs catching up to cover shifts in the subject's themes" isn't a great reason to delete, though it certainly does need some overhaul. Sinfest was a big deal in the early days of webcomics (one of the banner offerings for Keenspot, before Ishida left that site in 2006, and a breakout success by webcomic standards in general up through the early 2010s), and feels worth documenting for that historical value alone. It got a writeup in The Comics Journal as late as 2012, talking about the strip's artistic merits and the way its storytelling was developing in new and more complex directions. (Garrity, Shaenon (2012-04-23). "The Sisterhood of the Pimp Ninja Sluts". The Comics Journal. Retrieved 2024-07-30.) It's quite late here and I don't have time or energy to figure out how to best fit it into the article, or to revisit the recent (May) Haus of Decline/Bitter Karella podcast episode covering Sinfest's later developments (and how that fits with BLP), but there might be something there that can help bring the article up to date in a factual and reasonably neutral way. Mockingbus (talk) 08:24, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm extremely surprised to find this Garrity article I hadn't seen before. It is very good and certainly establishes more classic WP:N. Thank you for finding that! ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:59, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: IMO Publishers Weekly articles and two book passages make it notable. The Publishers Weekly article, while it may be "based on an interview" as the table says, is not simply a straightforward transcript of an interview -- we can't just discount media coverage because it includes direct quotations like this.--MattMauler (talk) 13:33, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting to solicit more feedback to the proposal from JPxG, which seems to be gaining some traction. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen×☎15:43, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: notability is not temporary and JPxG's proposal shows that the current issues are summountable. -- D'n'B-t -- 18:07, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question: I'm learning a lot about Wikipedia sourcing from this AfD :) A user edited the page to add this info, which was reverted quickly: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sinfest&diff=prev&oldid=1238006919 - note that the change is 'using some of the comic's strips themselves' as a reference to talk about what the comic has become. Why isn't this allowed? Perhaps because it's considered "original research" by Wikipedia, reading the comic and applying our own interpretation, rather than citing some expert doing it? Or is there some other policy? Hornpipe2 (talk) 00:57, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note to the relisting admin that I've updated my original comment to "strong delete." The proposal that the relisting seeks to solicit more feedback on is to use a single unreliable self-published blog to give negative opinions about a living person and contentious political topics. This is counter to many of our policies, including WP:BLPSPS. Elspea756 (talk) 03:54, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You've got to be kidding me -- this is one of the silliest comments I've read all month. A widely published scholar on the topic of webcomics said on his own website that the comic -- not the guy, the webcomic that the article is about -- had gone on a "downward spiral". Like, to be clear -- this is a farcical understatement. The comic is now, on a daily basis, the author going on extended rants about how he hates Jews and transgenders et cetera. To limit our description of this to "downward spiral" is already an extremely mild milquetoast phrasing resulting from massive concessions to BLP.
Your reasoning here is obscene: we can't write anything at all suggesting that the comic is bad, because it's so bad that mentioning how bad it is constitutes defamation, because it makes the guy who wrote it look like a bad person. Well, this makes no sense, there is no policy that says this, and nowhere else on Wikipedia do we make content decisions on this basis.
Do you genuinely think that WP:BLP says we're forbidden by policy to include any negative assessment of a creative work? Have you, or anyone else, successfully applied this reasoning to any other content in any other article? I claim the answer is "no", and this is a 100% diametrically-incorrect interpretation of what this policy says and how it works. jp×g🗯️05:03, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will counter the "widely published scholar" part; this author got a single book published and that's it. However, it's a very basic bit of reception of a creative work that indeed should not fall under BLP concerns. It doesn't even try to say what the politics are. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 06:12, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Maplestrip, for clearly debunking the "widely published scholar" claim. I'll note that WP:BLP says "Never use self-published sources." The proposed addition is to quote a self-published blog claiming that the artist is on a "downward spiral" and "at odds with reality."[11] The blogger's claim of a "downward spiral" is "everything you need to know about Ishida [the artist] and the downward spiral of Sinfest" is "The long, rambling, and hateful journey from ... nerd [to] addict [to] theorist [to] TERF [to] extremist." The "at odds with reality" claim is that "we've seen a comic creator slide into a headspace that seems at odds with reality." These are all from an unreliable self-published blog making contentious claims about a living person. This has no place in a wikipedia article. Elspea756 (talk) 15:26, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They are not in the article. I don't know how to explain to you that text not being in an article is not in an article, and I don't understand why you are just repeating the same thing over and over. Your claims are not true. jp×g🗯️13:44, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Amending a comment from elsewhere: Kleefeld may not be a widely-published scholar, but that doesn't mean he isn't a valid source. His book got at least one thorough and it seems generally favorable academic review in a relevant journal, and I'd argue that he's at least demonstrated credibility in the field. (Kashtan, Aaron (Summer 2021). "Webcomics by Sean Kleefeld (review)". Inks: The Journal of the Comics Studies Society. Ohio State University Press. Retrieved 2024-08-03.) -Mockingbus (talk) 01:58, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
lol I guess your plan is to target the one consensus we had, get it knocked out, and then you can get back to pushing to delete the comic you don't like? Hornpipe2 (talk) 16:48, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per non-notable with no WP:SIGCOV. And quite frankly, when I search for "Sean Kleefeld", I'm not seeing any reliable sources with WP:SIGCOV that would even qualify this guy for being a "scholar" by our guidelines, or to even have a biography. And a WP search for "Sean Kleefeld" only shows six results. And as one book review put it, his lack of research makes most of what is offered appear anecdotal and subjective. In my view, which is supported by an absence of reliable sources about this guy, his viewpoint is non-notable and insignificant.Isaidnoway(talk)10:40, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sean Kleefeld is not the author of Sinfest, whether he is notable or not is completely irrelevant to the question of whether his books represent significant coverage of Sinfest. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 11:13, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you have posted this comment on the wrong page -- Sean Kleefeld is one of around a dozen sources who's being cited for a single sentence. jp×g🗯️13:42, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing around a dozen sources being cited for this single sentence: By 2024, the strip had changed direction again; author Sean Kleefeld said that when catching up on Sinfest issues, he "wasn't understanding them", and that the comic's political themes had gone on a "downward spiral". It appears to me a Wikipedia editor has analyzed and interpreted a primary source themselves, then decided that a single sentence is an adequate summary of a 1700+ word article, and then to boot, cherry-picked five words to emphasize (the "quoted passages"), because they think those five words are noteworthy out of a 1700+ word article. Sorry, but I prefer that third-party independent sources analyze and interpret primary sources, and then Wikipedia reports what they think is noteworthy.Isaidnoway(talk)20:18, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to be an objection to the general project of "summarizing and presenting the information found in reliable secondary sources", i.e., to the entire project of writing an encyclopedia. If you feel that Kleefeld's article is being misrepresented or missummarized in the article, that's a content question that is subject to discussion and consensus on the talk-page; it has nada to do with notability or deletion. (I am the same person as IP 100.36.106.199.) 71.25.15.114 (talk) 20:48, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This sentence implies a comma; sorry, let me type it out explicitly, so that there is no possible way to misinterpret it:
Sean Kleefeld is one of around a dozen sources.
Sean Kleefeld is being cited for a single sentence.
Relisting seems to have muddied the waters even further haha.
Regardless of the status of edits adding Kleefeld's article as a source for new information, we come back to the same issue, which IMO is all around WP:NTEMP. Arguments that "the comic doesn't matter NOW" or "the comic hasn't mattered in 10 YEARS" does nothing to dissuade me, or I think most "keep" voters, from pointing out that the comic was notable THEN and should be kept for that reason alone. In fact, through this process, more sources have turned up discussing the comic during its heyday, which further reinforces notability during that time.
But even so, some argue that even IF it was notable for a time, there seems to be some argument for a "notability quotient", where continued publication requires continued notability, i.e. WP:SUSTAINED on a very long time scale - is the barrier for notability higher, because the author didn't quit while he was ahead?
The only thing that would persuade me, and (dare I speak for) most "keep" voters, is compelling arguments that the comic was never notable, or that even granted that, past notability isn't a high enough bar in this case. Aside from the (imo very flawed) source assessment table above, the closest thing to overlap I've seen between the two angles is "nobody is writing about its downfall now, so maybe it was never important to begin with." I think it would be beneficial to stick to a discussion of how WP:NTEMP works (or doesn't) with a long-running, lately-ignored media property instead, and hash out the Kleefeld article inclusion in the talk page.
Yes; I have no idea why we are being forced to have this conversation at the AfD. I have absolutely no idea why we are being forced to have this conversation at the AfD when it's simultaneously happening on the talk page, and the same people are crossposting the same comments to both pages. It's unbelievably pointless and I frankly think anyone who brings this stuff up again should just have their comments clerked to the talk page and replaced here with a link. jp×g🗯️00:41, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisting seems to have muddied the waters even further
Agreed, this AfD has been open for 17 days and at this point there is a clear consensus to keep the article, so someone should close this trainwreck. WP:RELIST says a relisted discussion may be closed once consensus is determined, without necessarily waiting for another seven days. I don't see any reason to wait, people seem to be getting frustrated with one another, evidenced by the screaming and hollering going on.Isaidnoway(talk)13:44, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Kleefeld may not be a notable scholar (and I'd argue that he isn't one at this time), but he isn't the one up for AFD here. His book got at least one thorough and it seems generally favorable academic review in a relevant journal. I'd argue that he's at least demonstrated credibility in the field. (Kashtan, Aaron (Summer 2021). "Webcomics by Sean Kleefeld (review)". Inks: The Journal of the Comics Studies Society. Ohio State University Press. Retrieved 2024-08-03.) -Mockingbus (talk) 01:56, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
keep: has been the subject of sustained and substantial critical attention. Just restricting to the online sources, the 2012 Comics Journal review and the recent Kleefeld blogpost are in-depth, independent coverage, and the Paste, Wired, and LJ reviews are well beyond passing mentions. None of the delete votes offers a compelling counter-argument. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.36.106.199 (talk) 01:12, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
comment: the removal of the improvements to the article stands as further proof that sinfest is not, and has never been, notable outside of a minor fad for webcomics in the 2005-2015 era. We don’t need an article for every individual pog and we don’t need an article for every individual webcomic. After this comic page is deleted, I think that dresden codak should be next Le Blue Dude (talk) 19:30, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. 8(+1) interwikis including the deletionist German WP, which claims the web comic was also released as four printed books. Seems to have made quite a cultural impact (WP:N) at its heyday. – sgeurekat•c07:54, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The subject meets WP:GNG, and I don't see a policy-compliant argument for deletion here. I'll note for those concerned about coverage that out-of-date articles are common on Wikipedia. It should be clear from the dates of the sources that the article is summarizing older coverage. Suriname0 (talk) 18:08, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I won't !vote since I haven't done a source analysis. But I'd like to say that this should only be deleted if the original AFD that concluded that this passes WP:GNG was incorrect, and that this does not actually pass WP:GNG. Something being notable but not having recent sourcing is, in my opinion and based on what I've seen in other AFDs, not a valid reason for deletion. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:35, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Arts and Entertainment Work Group - Writers and critics
The Arts and Entertainment Work Group - Writers and critics is a working group of members of the Biography WikiProject dedicated to ensuring quality and coverage of biography articles.
Related Projects
Since biographies are potentially under the purview of almost all WikiProjects, it is important that we work in tandem with these projects. Also, when seeking collaboration on articles, don't neglect to approach WikiProjects that are part of the geographical region your subject is/was in.
Related Portals
Increase the exposure of our work group by nominating our articles for their Portal FA and DYKs. Of course, don't forget the main portal, Portal:Arts
Delete The one review is a start at demonstrating criterion #3 of WP:NAUTHOR, but the bookseller page and his book do nothing to help. Searches in English and Bengali returned one article in a regional French newspaper about him presenting an artwork to the mayor of Saint-Paul-en-Chablais, but nothing about it suggests a significant depth of coverage.[12] I don't see a fundamental improvement since the first time this was deleted. --Worldbruce (talk) 22:45, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This person does not meet the notability criteria. That museum does not physically exist, he named himself director and chief curator, as far as I can see. Music label is also selfpublished. Linked websites are mostly his websites. Wikigrund (talk) 13:35, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I agree with Mississippi. As Director and Chief Curator of The Museum of Portable Sound more about Kannenberg can be added to the article. I am surprised it has this long for the article to be nominated for deletion or at least flagged given the article has no citations. Myotus (talk) 00:08, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article as nominated already had enough in-depth sources about his books (four about one and three about the other) for WP:AUTHOR. Citation counts are often not meaningful for academics in book-publishing fields. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:15, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to fail WP:NBIO - while it does have a piece of significant coverage, the InfoWorld article, the others are just announcements and primary source interviews without substantive discussion. It does not pass WP:NARTIST either due to the fact he was just a co-developer or director of most games he made. When the article was first made it also failed NBIO and does not seem to have remedied that situation. There are a lot of minor mentions, but a lack of SIGCOV. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:36, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, still fails the If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability. as most of them are primary and just trivial Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 05:51, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When you add this Ars Technica article, combined with PC Gamer and Boston Globe articles, I do think GuildCafe/GamerDNA passes WP:NCORP, so I will not be nominating it for deletion. Though I can't say the same for its creator yet. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:30, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But the Ars article heavily quotes Radoff, so I think WP:ATD would be feasible again. Not going by guidelines briefly, GamerDNA appeared to exist from 2006 to 2011(?), while Radoff had a career from 1992 to now. IgelRM (talk) 00:22, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. Is there an ATD being suggested somewhere here in this discussion? Please identify a suggested target article. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!05:36, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
should be deleted due to the lack of significant independent coverage that meets the General Notability Guideline (GNG), relying instead on primary sources, company related news and not significant mentions. LusikSnusik (talk) 10:22, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect: to Nyasa Times, the company that the subject found. Subject has enough WP:GNG. For example here reported by the Telegraph, subject won theBlack British Business Person of the Year award in 2021. I also found this where subject is being the founder and the Chief Executive Officer of Malawi's leading online publication, the Nyasa Times that he found in 2006. This could be used to sustain the article per (WP:NEXIST). --Tumbuka Arch (talk) 13:19, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete interviews are a poor way to establish notability and if he owns the Nyasa Times then it isn't independent enough to establish notability. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:42, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Traumnovelle Alternatively, it makes sense to redirect it to their company on Wikipedia that the subject found, thus Nyasa Times. Again, not all sources are interviews. Furthermore, this AfD was made by someone at random who was even reported at ANI here and there is even a discussion on their talk page about their nominations. Tumbuka Arch (talk) 07:30, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't oppose a redirect. I looked at the references now. I presumed the sources you mentioned were the strongest sources. The strongest source appears to be the Yorkshire Evening Post but it isn't enough for notability in my opinion. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:35, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Still no consensus. I'd like to close this as a Redirect but there is strong opposition to that outcome. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!05:43, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The Telegraph source I linked in my struck !vote above is insufficiently independent, which leaves a single instance of SIGCOV. I cannot find evidence of the Nyasa Times’ notability and may bring that page to AfD in the near future, but if others wish to redirect there for now, I won’t oppose it. Dclemens1971 (talk) 10:38, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have already added more references to this article to show notability. She has been written about in the Australian press with some brief bios in those articles. She advised the Federal Government and argued for innovative labour policies for women long before they were legislated by government such as paid maternity leave, flexible working hours, better access to child care. I will add more to her article later.LPascal (talk) 06:10, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I'd like to hear from more editors (one of the participants here has just been indefinitely blocked). Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!02:44, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article is important enough. Also there are more good references available to add to this article. Here is one: "Fiona Krautil produced a discussion pack on ‘What gets in the way of Women’s Advancement?’ for discussion at the Talent Council and the Succession Council, both of which exist to identify and develop high potential people." [13]Rockycape (talk) 04:58, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep The article is important but needs more improvements with references and details. my opinion is to keep the article. Yakov-kobi (talk) 07:22, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm nominating this page for deletion again because the initial discussion lacked sufficient engagement and the sources provided were inadequate in both quality and quantity. There's a notable absence of substantial coverage of Imre Vallyon, his work, or his organisation in multiple reliable secondary sources. Meeting notability criteria typically requires presenting at least three such sources. The article from Stuff, while primarily focused on his legal issues, appears to be the only source that meets these criteria. Without it, the page is mostly information sourced by primary sources and a list of his self published books and ebooks.
In terms of Vallyon's notability as a writer, the two book reviews presented by Oaktree b in the previous discussion are clearly poor sources, as they seem to be paid content from freelance writers on unreliable websites. Additionally, Vallyon does not meet the criteria for notability as a criminal according to Wikipedia guidelines on crime perpetrators, despite the only significant coverage of him focusing on his legal issues. His organisation, FHL, does not seem to meet the notability standards either. Ynsfial (talk) 16:55, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment for Ynsfial - it seems pointless making multiple attempts to have this article deleted as the previous Afd covered the arguments in sufficient depth. I suggest you look at the deletion review process if you consider there is an issue. NealeWellington (talk) 10:13, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, deletion review is the wrong avenue here. It was a no consensus close, and closed over 2 months ago. It is perfectly fine to bring it back for another look. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:59, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So it's a weak keep? Those 2 articles are 100% of the coverage and The Netherlands media coverage doesn't even pass the way I see it. Do you have any other coverage?Ynsfial (talk) 00:59, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Looks like an attempt to delete the history to me. It happened before that talented people did crimes (Roman Polansky etc.) and encyclopedia must show the good and the bad. There had been "no consensus" discussion before and my position here is that the person is a notable author and notable criminal and convicted felon at the same time. Also, I see it as a strange attempt from another editor and I have COI concerns here. If the page stays, I suggest to monitor it carefully for any future attempts to delete the historical record.--Saul McGill (talk) 01:22, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For a strong keep, there isn't much of a strong argument. How does he pass WP:AUTHOR and WP:PERPETRATOR? He's not comparable to Roman Polanski at alll... Being a convicted felon has nothing to do with notability besides inciting an emotional response from many editors.Ynsfial (talk) 00:27, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks WP:SIGCOV in multiple RS to meet WP:GNG. I don't think the Dutch NOS article mentioned above provides significant enough coverage. I'd say awards won aren't enough for notability, but this might be worth looking into further. @Saul McGill:, I don't see how he fulfills WP:PERPETRATOR or WP:AUTHOR. He fails all the criteria for both. Mooonswimmer01:57, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1. Is Vallyon notable as an author? Only a few reliable sources have covered Vallyon’s works. Thus, he is not notable under WP:GNG.
2. Is Vallyon a notable criminal? Vallyon also fails WP:PERPETRATOR. A criminal is only notable if the media in many countries have covered their crimes or if the crimes were historic or major. There has been coverage of his legal issues, but it may not be enough to meet these standards.
3. Is there reliable coverage? To strengthen the argument, we rely on you, the editors and contributors, to provide sources that can offer an in-depth study of Vallyon’s life and work or his crimes.
4. Is there community consensus? The ongoing debate and non-consensus closure of previous discussions highlight the urgency of a closer review of the sources and arguments, mainly regarding their differing viewpoints. Everyone's input is crucial in this process.
In short, the coverage does not explore his works or crimes. If the consensus favors retention due to his criminal history, the article must meet WP:BLP. It is our collective duty to ensure that it remains neutral and relies on proper sources.--AstridMitch (talk) 19:36, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AstridMitch, I struggled to follow your logic, to be honest. For example, per WP:PERPETRATOR, his crimes were covered in New Zealand and Germany, which constitutes international media coverage. Additionally, he has followers and organized groups in many countries, indicating an impact that clearly extends beyond one region or even country. Moreover, the "no consensus" closure doesn't highlight any urgency as you incorrectly claimed. This is simply not true and there is no urgency here unless it may be urgent for you. Regarding the reliable coverage argument, I didn't understand your point. Overall, your comment resembles an emotional appeal to editors' collective consciousness (also beyond my logic in terms of Wikipedia's rules) rather than providing clear arguments.--50.46.167.81 (talk) 07:54, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep
In addition to being a prolific and frequently published writer who meets WP:GNG, he is notable as a spiritual influencer or "cult leader" (arguably) with large groups of followers in several countries. He wouldn't have been covered by major media outlets in New Zealand and Europe if he were just a child molester. The point is that he was active as a philosopher and "school leader" who organized large international groups of followers, which then caught media attention. They described him as an influencer, a child molester, and a convicted felon. Therefore, I suggest adding "spiritual influencer" or "Spiritual teacher" to the definition, as supported by sources on his page.
50.46.167.81 (talk) 04:43, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
’’’Strong keep’’’: The coverage in the Stuff article clearly establishes [[WP
]]. He has published many books and ebooks. He was found guilty of the crimes, and I suspect that someone is trying to remove this site from Wikipedia because of this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.227.56.207 (talk) 12:38, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. Right now, I'm seeing No consensus just like the last AFD in May 2024. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!20:32, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Faizi Dehlvi, I edit from IP and this is allowed by Wikipedia. If all you can write is that fails "all notability guidelines" and accuse someone of COI, then I have similar concerns about you. As a matter of fact, one of the "users" was a paid editor here and was blocked for sockpuppeteering. The problem is that you came here with no arguments behind your opinion and started with non-constructive claims 50.46.167.81 (talk) 06:00, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The award implies notability; the Stuff article seems like a RS. with the rest of the sourcing, can easily establish notability. Oaktree b (talk) 23:38, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As brought up in the other discussion, the review in The Seattle Post-Intelligencer is a republished one from Blogcritics. Archived discussions on WP:RSN seem to indicate that it hasn't been considered reliable the times it was brought up since it appears to accept content from any blogger. The website's About us states:
"Blogcritics gives writers the opportunity to gain an exponentially higher level of visibility (and thus, traffic and search rank) than they could ever achieve through their home blog or website alone.
Weak keep: The case for Vallyon is barely passing for notability in my opinion. His actions were covered internationally in New Zealand and the Netherlands, which establishes WP:CRIME, and he has enough secondary sourcing. Additional comment: noting that a blocked sockpuppet editor AstridMitch was an active contributor to this case, which suggests a targeted action. Silvymaro (talk) 14:33, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Republished review from Blogcritics. The website's About us states:
"Blogcritics gives writers the opportunity to gain an exponentially higher level of visibility (and thus, traffic and search rank) than they could ever achieve through their home blog or website alone."
Archived discussions on WP:RSN seem to indicate that Blogcritics hasn't really been considered reliable the times it was brought up since it seems to accept content from any blogger.
~ The articles focuses on the FHL breaking ties with Vallyon and on his crimes. Almost nothing about Vallyon not related to the crimes, or about his teachings. The FHL is a non-notable organization.
Horror New's website has sections entitled "How to Get Your Book or Comic Reviewed on (HNN) Horrornews.net?" and "How to Expedite your Film Review?" Their About us states:
"HNN simply is a means for your film, product, book or studio to have existence on the internet. Whether bad or good, a product without existence in the search engines is simply without relevance. You work hard to create something, while we work hard to create a site that provides existence for your items."
Review (albeit poorly written) of Vallyon's book
✘No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
Note that the two books reviews are both published on websites that churn out reviews for SEO, and that the only other two sources were published with a focus on his crimes. Absolutely nothing on his foundation, his teachings and philosophy, his books. Mooonswimmer02:09, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FA
A
GA
